A petition drive spearheaded by Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner to place a binding referendum on the November ballot to impose an eight-year limit on state legislative terms was ruled unconstitutional by a unanimous, three-judge Illinois Appellate Court panel last week, and the state Supreme Court declined Friday to hear an appeal of that ruling.

Online comment threads have been bristling with the suggestion that politics have infected this decision, since it clearly benefits the dreaded veteran power brokers in Springfield who backed the court challenge.

But the state constitution of 1970 put very strict limits on citizen initiatives. The only amendments that can be put directly to voters are those that deal with "structural and procedural" elements of the legislature.

Imposing term limits — or making any change that simply alters the qualifications to seek office — pretty obviously doesn't meet that test. The state Supreme Court said so in 1994, so this time around, the Rauner-backed Committee for Legislative Reform and Term Limits proposed a three-part referendum question that included term limits along with a pair of unconnected structural and procedural changes.

I would say nice try, but it wasn't even really that.

"We are not persuaded by the committee's attempt to connect the term-limits provision with other parts of the amendment," wrote the Appellate Court panel last week.

We are not persuaded by the committee's attempt to connect the term-limits provision with other parts of the amendment.— Appellate Court

Because it wasn't persuasive. In fact, the committee conceded that the purpose of the effort was to increase the responsiveness of the General Assembly and to reduce the influence of special interests — inarguably good results but outside the scope of what the constitution allows.

If this limitation frustrates you, then you should support candidates for the state House and Senate who pledge to use legislative means to introduce an amendment that would allow for a broader range of citizen initiatives.

I'm not saying I love the idea, but I certainly love the idea of a vigorous debate about it.

I'm also not saying I love the idea of legislative term limits. The proposal here seems aimed primarily at dislodging the entrenched Democratic leaders, a goal that could be achieved more surgically by limiting the number of years any one person could spend in key leadership positions.

In 2011, the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles analyzed the impact of term limits in California after they went into effect in 1996. The conclusion:

"The primary goal of the term-limits movement was to create a 'citizen legislature' of members who would presumably be more closely in touch with the electorate," said the report. "Instead, the state has witnessed an enhanced form of political musical chairs, in which termed-out state legislators simply move to other state or local political offices. ... Members today have less state legislative experience than pre-term limits, which has produced a legislature that is more dependent on the expertise of lobbyists and staff and weaker in its relationships with the executive branch."

This is very similar to the editorial observations in 2013 by Crain's Cleveland Business: The term limits that went into effect in Ohio in 2000 "have only increased the power of the lobbyists and staff members, who become the only folks in Columbus around long enough to have institutional memory and long-term contacts," said the paper.

Those who nevertheless love the idea of term limits ought to be asking Gov. Pat Quinn why he's been so inert on the issue. He was the leader of the ill-fated 1994 referendum effort and, as governor since early 2009, has been in a position to run a bully-pulpit campaign to try to move such a measure through the General Assembly.

On this issue, Quinn has let Rauner out-grass-roots him, which may inspire voters to limit his term in office.

Vote ... for the children

It's easy to take whacks at Al Sharpton, the MSNBC host, preacher and civil rights leader who blusters into every major race-tinged controversy to fan the flames and spout indignant presumptions that often turn out to be wrong (Google "Tawana Brawley" for example).

But I was struck by the wisdom and relevance Sharpton exhibited in a quote published in Friday's paper. Speaking to a rally in Ferguson, Mo., Sharpton was decrying the pitifully low turnout in that city's previous three local elections — 12.3 percent, 11.7 percent and 8.9 percent.

Said Sharpton, "Twelve percent turnout is an insult to your children."

Exactly. Helping choose the leaders who will shape your community isn't only a civic responsibility, it's also a family obligation. Even if you're weary and cynical and dispirited, you owe it to your children, to all children, to get off your rear end, register to vote, get informed and make it to the polls.

If you don't, well, first, shame on you for insulting your children.

Second, stop complaining about the actions and inactions of those whom you allowed other people to elect.

Re:tweets

The funniest line of the week on Twitter as selected by the scintillating and well-dressed readers of Change of Subject online comes from @polychromatik: "Do you ever wake up, kiss the person beside you and just be thankful to be alive? I did. Not really appreciated on flights, apparently."

Read all the nominated tweets and comments on this column at chicagotribune.com/zorn.